Conversion Technology

Conversion technology: A complement
to plastic recycling
April 2011
This research project was funded by the American Chemistry Council.
Prepared by:
4R Sustainability, Inc.
Portland, OR 97203
kholmes@4RSustainability.com
www.4RSustainability.com
503-319-7009
Conversion technology: A complement to plastic recycling
Executive Summary
The field of solid waste management continues to evolve and much of that evolution is driven by the
adoption of new technologies that increase recovery capacity and processing capabilities. Despite all of
the technological advances over the recent years in the reclamation of plastics, there remains a portion
of the plastic waste stream that cannot be mechanically recycled due to contamination, lack of markets
or the inability to separate plastics that can make recovery unfeasible. In the U.S., much of this nonrecycled plastic then becomes landfilled. However, a new generation of conversion technology
specifically designed to manage non-recycled plastics has been developed, and commercial scale
facilities that use pyrolysis technology to convert plastics into oil and fuel are being established in
Europe and Asia.
The benefits presented by plastic to fuel (PTF) technologies are two-fold: transforming nonrecycled plastic into a valuable commodity, and creating a reliable source of alternative energy from an
abundant, no-cost feedstock. This paper provides an overview of the newest generation of PTF
technologies, explores how this technology can be used to compliment and support the existing
mechanical recycling infrastructure for plastics, and discusses the opportunities and barriers that exist to
commercializing this technology in the U.S.
1. Overview
In the U.S., the field of solid waste management is becoming more closely aligned with resource
management, and this is occurring in large part because the way we view waste is dramatically
shifting. New technologies are being developed that allow more materials to be recovered and new
value created from those materials. Much more of our waste stream is considered to be valuable scrap
material and new technologies such as automation for materials separation and major improvements in
commercial composting are allowing the industry to tap into these resources and create value out of
what was previously considered non-valuable material. Conversion technologies, specifically those
designed for plastics, offer the same potential to create value for landfilled plastics that are not
appropriate for mechanical recycling. And further, plastic to fuel (PTF) technologies offer the potential
to manage landfill-bound plastics as a resource to create a valuable alternative fuel source.
At this time, a large portion of the plastic waste stream is still treated as waste, and there is a
large opportunity to recover more of the plastics we use in the United States. Factors that currently limit
mechanical recycling include: contamination issues (e.g., food waste), technical challenges of separating
resins in mixed resin products, and lack of markets for some plastics. While technically all thermoplastics
can be recycled, the conditions identified above can make recovery through mechanical recycling
economically impossible. The result is that many plastics still are not recovered at end-of-life.
April 2011
2
Now, an end-of-life management option exists for non-recycled1 plastics: conversion of scrap
plastics to either chemical feedstock or fuel. These conversion technologies rely on the processes of
depolymerization and pyrolysis, respectively. Those in the plastics industry may be familiar with the
term pyrolysis, or plastic-to-fuel (PTF) technologies, and have some knowledge of past attempts that
have been made to commercialize this technology. The technology has existed for decades, but
challenges seemed to persist in making commercial-scale systems economically feasible, and the
technology was limited and did not yield a desirable product. However, recent investment and
innovation in pyrolytic technology has created a new generation of systems that may have overcome
these previous challenges. And, these modern systems have been deployed in communities in Europe
and Asia with a number of years of demonstrated success.
The recent evolution of conversion technologies for managing scrap plastics has given cause for
a re-evaluation of how these systems might serve as a viable end of life option for scrap plastics, and
better yet, how these systems might be used to complement the existing recycling infrastructure of
plastics. In an effort to better understand the technologies that are available and how they might be
used, the American Chemistry Council commissioned this study. This report covers the following items:
Definition of conversion technology

Existing technologies
System feedstock
Growth model for technology abroad
Growth model for technology in North America
Opportunities and barriers
Policies that promote commercialization of PTF technologies
Outlook for growth in the U.S.
The information in this report is a summary of findings gathered during interviews of plastic-to-fuel
technology manufacturers, users of PTF technology, industry experts and solid waste managers.
Because this information is aggregated from a number of sources, much of this information is presented
as averages and general experiences. Specific technologies and economic scenarios will differ for each
system and should be fully vetted. The information presented in this report is intended to inform the
readers, including municipalities, government officials, plastics reclaimers, materials recovery facility
(MRF) managers, investors, and other interested parties about the current state of conversion
technology for scrap plastics, how these systems fit in community solid waste management plans and
what conditions exist that could benefit, or hinder, the commercialization of these systems in North
America.
In this document, non-recycled refers to used plastics that are not mechanically recycled. ISO 15270 defines
mechanical recycling as processing of plastics waste into secondary raw material or products without
significantly changing the chemical structure of the material. (Source: ISO 15270:2008(E). Plastics Guidelines for
the recovery and recycling of plastics waste. 2008)
April 2011
3
2. Definition of conversion technology
The term conversion technology encompasses a broad range of technologies that are used to treat a
wide variety of materials in the waste stream. Those technologies include incineration, gasification,
hydrolysis, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis and chemical feedstock recovery. This study only focuses on
the latter two technologies of pyrolysis and depolymerization systems that are specifically designed to
treat scrap plastics. The other technologies mentioned vary significantly from the technologies discussed
in this report. An example of the capacity and outputs of these conversion technologies can be found in
Table 1, which is an evaluation of conversion technologies for municipal solid waste (MSW) conducted
by Los Angeles County.
It should be noted that under ISO 15270, conversion technologies, such as cracking, gasification and
depolymerization are recognized as forms of recycling; specifically, they are classified as chemical or
feedstock recycling. Pyrolysis is a synonym for cracking.
Table 1. Conversion technologies considered for treatment of MSW2
Technology Supplier
Arrow Ecology and
Engineering
Technology Type
Anaerobic Digestion
Proposed Capacity
300 tons/day
Changing World
Technologies
Thermal
Depolymerization
200 tons/day
International
Environmental
Solutions
Pyrolysis
Interstate Waste
Technologies
Pyrolysis/High
Temperature
Gasification
Low Temperature
Gasification
242.5 tons/day @
58.9% moisture
125 tons/day @ 20%
moisture
312 tons/day (1 unit)
624 tons/day (2 units)
935 tons/day (3 units)
413 tons/day
NTech Environmental
Major Products
Biogas (Electricity)
Digestate (Compost)
Recyclables
Renewable Diesel
Carbon Fuel
Metals
Syngas (Electricity)
Mixed Metals
Aggregate
Table 1. Source: LA County 2007
As demonstrated in Table 1, pyrolytic and depolymerization systems can treat a wide variety of
materials. Because these systems are used to treat MSW, there are vastly different permitting issues,
economics and growth models, and very different levels of support for these technologies. MSW
program managers who considered the technology options in Table 1 met with a great deal of resistance
from environmental communities, very similar to the opposition to waste incineration technologies.
Because the political and economic conditions and feedstock for these technology types in Table 1 vary
2
Los Angeles County Conversion Technology Evaluation Report: Phase 2 Assessment. October 2007.
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/tf/attachments/LACo_Conversion_PII_Report.pdf.
April 2011
4
so greatly from the conditions for plastics-to-fuel and plastics-to-chemical feedstock recovery, this
report evaluates the latter category of technology as separate from the other conversion technologies.
One of the most obvious examples of those differences is the capacity of the system. Most PTF systems
are designed to manage about 20 tons per day. The vast capacity difference and the narrow treatment
of plastics in PTF suggest these systems are very different in purpose and function.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, conversion technologies refers to the pyrolysis and
depolymerization technologies that are specifically designed to treat scrap plastics. Specifically, the use
of the term pyrolysis refers to plastic-to-fuel (PTF) technologies that handle scrap plastic through a
process of thermal treatment, and sometimes pressure, to convert these plastics to a fuel product. The
term depolymerization refers to chemical feedstock recovery, or a process of turning scrap plastics
back into monomers that can be used to rebuild resins that will have the properties and performance of
virgin resins.3
3. Depolymerization technologies
While chemical feedstock recovery, or depolymerization, is not the primary focus of this study, it is
important to recognize the positive impact that this form of plastic-specific conversion technology is
having on the recovery of scrap plastics and other resin-based products. Depolymerization has
successfully been employed to recover monomers from PET, polyamides such as nylons, and
polyurethanes such as foam.
Depolymerization presents two unique advantages in recycling resin-based products, the ability
to return a recovered resin to virgin resin-like quality, and the potential to recover a valuable feedstock
from products that are economically challenging to recycle. When plastic is mechanically recycled, even
small levels of contamination can compromise the performance of the resin. However, because
depolymerization breaks scrap plastics back into the basic building blocks for resin, that contamination is
removed. The resulting monomers, such as terephthalic acid, ethylene glycol, styrene and ethyl
benzene, can be recovered and be remade into what is essentially comparable to virgin resins, free from
impurities, and possessing virgin resin-like properties.
In terms of how depolymerization can be used to recover resin that would otherwise generally
not be recovered, perhaps the best example is the recovery of nylon from scrap carpet. Carpet contains
a number of resin components that can make mechanical plastic recycling and recovery difficult and
economically challenging. However, a few firms have demonstrated the economic viability of nylon 6
recovery through chemical feedstock recovery methods, as depicted in Table 2.
Because these chemical feedstock recovery systems typically give manufacturers a competitive
edge in their industry, much of the information about the function of these systems is proprietary. For
this reason, detailed technology evaluations of these depolymerization systems are not available in this
3
For additional information on depolymerization, visit the American Chemistry Councils site on advanced
recycling technologies, http://www.americanchemistry.com/plastics/doc.asp?CID=1583&DID=6005.
April 2011
5
report. However, Table 2 is a list of known firms employing the use of, or possessing, the technology to
perform chemical feedstock recovery from scrap plastics and resin-containing products.
Table 2. Companies employing the use of depolymerization technologies
Company
Shaw
Dupont Canada
SABIC
GE Plastics
NURRC
Eastman
Polyflow
Recycling performed through chemical feedstock recovery

Nylon 6 recovery (separating nylon 6 from the rest of the carpet fiber)
Nylon 6 recovery
PET to PBT chemical conversion process
PET to PBT chemical conversion process
Use of a partial depolymerization process for producing food-grade PET. The
process breaks down the outer layer of the rPET flake into monomers.
Holds a number of patents for chemical feedstock recovery processes
Has a unique pyrolytic process that converts plastics to fuel, natural gas and
monomers, such as styrene and ethylbenzene.
The examples in Table 2 demonstrate just a few advantages that conversion technology can bring to the
recovery and recycling of resin-based products. Chemical feedstock recovery can create significant
added value to scrap material as well as create recovery options for resin-based products that otherwise
may not be recycled. While these technologies are not the primary focus of this study, they are an
important example of how conversion technologies can be used to enhance recovery and recycling
alongside the existing recycling infrastructure.
4. Pyrolytic conversion technologies
A primary focus of this study is to identify technologies that use pyrolysis to convert scrap plastic to fuel
sources. 4R identified 23 manufacturers of PTF technology. Each of these technologies is unique in
terms of the type of scrap plastics the systems can handle, and the output, or fuel product. Common
features of these systems include:
Some level of pretreatment this could be as minor as size reduction or as involved as cleaning
and moisture removal.
Conversion pyrolytic processes are used to convert the plastic to a gas.
Distillation the gas is converted to liquid form
Acid removal process removal of acids that form in the breakdown of some scrap plastics.
These acids require removal because they can be corrosive to the PTF systems as well as the
engines that will consume the fuel.
Separation/refining/final blending - the final steps required to make this product consumer
ready can either be done on site or by a third party, depending on the system design.
April 2011
6
A depiction of the process flow can be found in Appendix A.4 While these systems vary in design, they
have all been designed with the same purpose create value from scrap resin that would otherwise be
landfilled.
Although successful use of this technology has been demonstrated at PTF facilities around the
world, no commercial-scale systems have yet been developed in North America. Despite the lack of
adoption of PTF technologies in North America, there are a number of U.S. and Canadian-based
technology manufacturers that have operational pilot facilities. And, some of the first reports are being
made of orders being placed for commercial-scale systems. Table 3 contains a list of North American
technology manufacturers.
Table 3. North American Technology Manufacturers
Company Name
Location
Agilyx*
Climax Global Energy*
Tigard, Oregon
Allendale, South
Carolina
Washington, D.C.
Barrie, Ontario
Toronto , Ontario
Envion*
GEEP*
GreenMantra Recycling
Technology
Natural State Research
(NSR)
Nexus Fuels
Northeastern University
Plastic2Oil (JBI, Inc.)*
PolyFlow
Recarbon corp.
Vadxx*
General output
description (Fuel/Oil)
Oil
Oil
Technology form in
Appendix B
Yes
Yes
Oil
Fuel
Wax/lubricants
Yes
Yes
No
Stamford, Connecticut
Fuel
Yes
Atlanta, Georgia
Fuel
Gas (skips distillation
process)
Fuel
Fuel
Oil
Oil
Yes
No
Niagara Falls, New York

Akron, Ohio
Kingston, Pennsylvania
Cleveland, Ohio
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Have a pilot scale facility in operation. Appendix B contains technology forms.
The majority of these companies have pilot-scale facilities which tend to be about one-fifth of the size of
the smallest recommended capacity for a commercial-scale facility. The others listed have bench scale
systems which are even smaller demonstration systems. The difference in the scale of the facility is
generally directly related to how long the technology has been in development. For example, one of the
firms with a pilot scale facility is developing its sixth generation of the system. Each generation reflects
improvements in processing and efficiency. However, development of pilot-scale facilities has generally
taken most firms three to five years. The financial resources that have been made available to
developing the technology will also have an impact on the size of the facility.
Process flow courtesy of Cynar.
April 2011
7
In addition to these North American technology manufacturers, a number of other international
technology manufacturers have emerged, some of whom have made great strides in commercializing
these systems. Those identified technology manufacturers are contained in Table 4.
Table 4. Conversion technology systems outside of North America

Company name
Company location Facility location General output
description
(Fuel/Oil)
Anhui Oursun
China
Hefei in Anhui, Oil
Environmental
China
Technologies
Blest
Japan
Japan
Oil
Cynar Plc
Ireland
UK
Fuel
ECO Intl
Korea
Fuel
Marketing
Klean Industries,
Vancouver, BC
Asia and
Fuel
Inc.
Canada
Europe
P-Fuel, Ltd.
Australia
Australia ,
Fuel
North Korea,
South Korea,
Plastic Advanced
Illinois
China
Fuel
Recycling Corp.
PlastOil
Switzerland
Switzerland
Oil
Polymer Energy*
U.S.
Thailand, India
Fuel
Promeco/Cimelia
Italy/Singapore
Singapore
Oil
T Technology
Poland
Poland, Spain,
Fuel
Italy
Technology form in
Appendix B
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
*Currently licensing technology
As depicted in Table 4, a number of commercial scale facilities are in operation around the world. While
investor uncertainty regarding the economic viability of these systems may exist in North America,
investors abroad are seemingly more confident in this technology. Some of these commercial facilities
have been in operation for three or more years, demonstrating the technological and economic
feasibility for using pyrolytic technology to recover more scrap plastics. Section 6 of this report explores
the adoption of this technology in North America and abroad.
5. System feedstock (Inputs)
There are a number of reasons why many scrap plastics and resin products are not recovered and
mechanically recycled. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in 2009 just seven
percent of plastic in municipal solid waste stream was recovered for mechanical recycling.5 Technically
speaking, a majority of plastics produced can be mechanically recycled, however the economics of doing
5
U.S. EPA, Common Wastes & Materials Plastics, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/plastics.htm.
April 2011
8
so often do not favor the mechanical recycling of contaminated plastics and/or multi-layer plastics. The
condition of many plastics at end-of-life can make it economically unfeasible to mechanically recycle
them, and in some cases, stable recovery markets for certain resins and products are lacking. However,
because the latest generation of pyrolysis technologies are designed to accept a wide variety of resin
types, can accommodate many forms of contamination and require little pretreatment before being fed
into the system, PTF technology could present a potential alternative to landfilling non-recycled plastics.
In terms of identified feedstock for these systems, technology manufacturers claimed the following
items as optimal sources of scrap material for fuel recovery:
Nos. 2, and 4-7 (systems handle No.2 but are not designed to rely on HDPE), other contaminated
plastics from MRFs.
Contaminated films, rigids and other consumer plastics currently not being recycled
Any other rigid plastics headed to the landfilll
Non-recycled caps, labels and rejects from reclaimers
Agricultural plastics
Oil bottles
Auto shredder residue (ASR) plastics
Scrap carpet
Engineering grade resins
Mixed resin products and thermosets
However, not all systems can accommodate all of these types of material (see Appendix B for specific
listing of optimal inputs for each system). The majority of the pyrolytic systems can accommodate
consumer packaging of all types, including Nos. 1-7. It should be noted that while polyethylene
terephthalate (PET, No. 1) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC, No. 3) are not listed as optimal feedstock for
these systems, the majority of these systems can accommodate them in varying amounts. Usage of
these systems envisions that feedstock materials will be pre-sorted, with valuable PET and HDPE
removed for mechanical recycling. Therefore, PET levels will likely be low. The threshold levels for PVC,
at 10%-15% are generally commensurate with the presence of PVC in the packaging waste stream.
In terms of fuel yield, PET and PVC are also less desirable because their fuel yield is considerably
lower than other resins. The fuel yield for PET is just 30 percent compared to polystyrene (PS) at 90
percent, and polypropylene (PP) and low density polyethylene (LDPE), which yield about 70 percent.
The yield for PVC is similar to that of PET, at about 30 percent, but PVC also breaks down into
hydrochloric acid during the conversion process. Most systems are designed to capture and remove
hydrochloric and other acids that might be present due to additives in the scrap plastic feedstock. Acids
can be corrosive to both the conversion system and the combustion systems that the final product is
ultimately used in. While it is generally the case that PVC should be limited in many of these systems, a
few systems are available that can handle higher thresholds, such as the Agilyx system which can
accommodate up to 70 percent PVC.
April 2011
9
PTF technology manufacturers also were asked if systems could accommodate bio-based resins,
such as poly lactic acid (PLA). Most responded that batches of PLA had not been specifically tested but it
was likely that PLA had been present in the mixed Nos. 3-7 material that is run at pilot facilities. To
everyones knowledge, bio-resins had not yet presented any problems for the systems and in theory
should breakdown in the conversion process.
6. Outputs
Each system evaluated in this study produces three outputs: natural gas, the fuel product and char.6
The natural gas can be rerouted into the system to account for a portion of the systems energy needs,
or it can be flared (clean burned). The majority of the systems do capture the energy from this gas,
which can account for about one-third of the systems energy needs; however this will vary by system.
In terms of fuel output, the products derived from these pyrolytic systems can be quite
different. Some of the systems produce a gasoline-diesel fuel blend that needs further refining. Some
generate a product similar to sweet crude oil that needs to be refined, but can become a variety of
products and other PTF systems produce diesel fuel ready for use in vehicles. One system, produced by
Natural State Research, claims its technology can be customized to produce a product that will meet the
buyers needs, ranging from heating oil and gasoline, to naphtha or aviation diesel (all have been tested
to meet ASTM standards). Most of the technology manufacturers that have pilot-scale facilities in place,
and offering systems that have fuel outputs which require further refining or blending by a third party
have had their products tested and processed to ensure that the output is indeed a usable product that
will be in demand.
Char is the material that is left once the pyrolytic process is complete and the fuel recovered.
Char contains the additives and contaminants that enter the system as part of the feedstock. The char
can be a powdery residue or substance that is more like sludge with a heavy oil component. Glass,
metal, calcium carbonate, clay and carbon black are just a few of the contaminants and additives that
will remain after the conversion process is complete and become part of the char. In all cases,
technology manufacturers said the char was a benign material that could be landfilled. In some cases,
technology manufacturers are exploring applications for the char. Some of those exploratory end uses
include road, carpet and roofing material. PTF technology manufacturers most often cited additional
energy recovery as the management option for the char. Because there is a carbon component in the
char, this material can be sent to an incinerator, or burned on site for additional energy recovery. These
alternative uses for the char make the conversion process potentially a zero-landfill management option
for non-recycled scrap plastics.
Fuel yield estimates will be different for each system, and each technology manufacturer notes
that yields will vary from batch to batch depending on the quality of the feedstock being used. The more
6
The only exception to this being the Northeastern University technology, which transforms the plastic into gas
and does not move the gas through the distillation process to produce a fuel. Instead, the gas is diverted for
energy use.
April 2011
10
contamination and non-resin materials present, the less the fuel yield will be. Higher presence of PS, PP
and LLDPE, the higher the yield will also be. Here is a breakdown of the average system outputs.
Table 5. Breakdown of system output
Output
Percentage of overall output
Char
Ranges on average from 2%-13% (one system claims
negligible amounts of char when the system is run on
a continuous feed versus a batch feed)
Natural gas
Ranges on average from 8% to 10%
Fuel/Oil
Ranges average from 80%-90%
7. System economics
The average recommended commercial-scale facility will have capacity of 7,500 to 10,000 tons per year,
and all of these technologies can be easily scaled up by adding additional vessels or modules. Just as
differences can be found in how these systems are designed, even greater differences can be found in
system pricing. Quotes for systems ranged on average from $4 million to $5 million, however some
systems were quoted as low as $1 million and as high as $11.5 million. Examples of system pricing are
contained in Table 6.
Table 6. Example of quotes for pyrolysis systems
Company
Price
System capacity per year
System A
Just under $1 million
7,500 tons
System B
$4 million
10,000 tons
System C
$4-$5 million
7,500 tons
System D
$5 million
10,000 tons
System E
$7 million
10,000 tons
Return on investment (ROI) is generally quoted at two to five years if all cost conditions and product
pricing hold steady. Factors that could impact the length of ROI include changes in energy costs, price of
oil and fuel, and cost and availability of scrap plastic. However, due to the abundance of unrecovered
and non-recycled scrap plastic, the last condition will likely not be a factor on ROI timeframe for some
time.
Technology manufacturers offered very similar descriptions of economic models for PTF
systems. The systems should be located at, or near, the source of the material at a MRF, collection
facility, manufacturing facility generating non-recyclable scrap plastics, or even a landfill. All of the
technology manufacturers said the economic forecast includes being able to obtain the scrap plastic
April 2011
11
material at no cost, and does not generally support paying for this material. The economics seem
attractive, since currently the owners of this material have to pay a per-ton tipping fee to have this nonrecycled, and therefore, unwanted material landfilled. This further supports the theory that scrap
plastics, for which recycling markets currently exist, would not be diverted to a fuel recovery facility.
Any scrap material that has even the slightest value as a marketable commodity would continue to be
diverted into the mechanical recycling markets.
The fact that the calculated return on investment does not include charging the generators of
plastic is important for several of reasons. First, because generators can avoid landfill fees, this will
create a strong incentive to divert landfill-bound plastics to conversion systems. Second, in terms of the
growth model for these systems in North America, because generators will not be charged a per-ton fee,
PTF facilities can be located in any region of the U.S., independent of landfill disposal fees. For example,
if the economic model required PTF system operators to charge a $40 per ton fee, siting a facility in a
region with a $30 per ton landfill fee could threaten the ability to secure adequate volumes. The fact
that landfill, and all other disposal fees, would be avoided by diverting non-recycled scrap plastics to a
PTF facility makes it an ideal end-of-life option, regardless of how landfill tip fees vary across the nation.
This will be further explored in section 9.
As discussed, fuel yields and production costs will vary based on the nature of the feedstock and
labor and energy costs in the region. A general example of yield and production cost is offered below.
One system manufacturer offered the following production yield and cost projections:
One ton of mixed scrap plastic = 264 gallons of consumer-ready fuel
Production costs (if plastic is obtained for free) = $0.75 per gallon
Economic returns are seen in either the sale of the fuel product, or the offset fuel costs if a company
uses the fuel internally. When asked about the connection of ROI and the value of crude oil, a number of
manufacturers said PTF-derived fuel is competitive to traditionally-derived fuel, even if the price of
crude oil drops to about $40 per barrel.
A final point about the economics of PTF is a consideration of the best and highest use for
non-recycled plastics. In terms of maximizing the inherent energy of plastics, pyrolysis also seems to be
a better option than incineration with energy recovery. Using the above estimated production numbers,
5.6 pounds of scrap plastic would produce one gallon of diesel fuel. In terms of energy values:
One gallon of oil = 138,095 BTUs7

One pound of mixed plastic = 15,500 BTUs (when incinerated)8
Bioenergy conversion factors Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html.
April 2011
12
Based on the calculation that one ton of scrap plastics would produce 264 gallons of consumer-ready
fuel, it takes about 7.57 pounds of plastic to make one gallon of fuel.
The BTU value of 7.57 lbs. of plastic when incinerated would be about 117,424 BTUs. Compare
that to the 138,095 BTU value of diesel, which also requires 7.57 pounds of plastic, and these
calculations suggest that PTF yields better energy value from scrap plastics. If the BTU value of the char
residual is then considered, which can be burned for further energy recovery, the BTU value of all
products from the pyrolytic process will be even higher. While a further direct comparison and life cycle
analysis also measuring the energy/resource inputs of pyrolysis and incineration will need to be
conducted, initial numbers suggest that the fuel product from pyrolysis is likely a higher and better
use for non-recycled plastics than incineration.
8. Examples of International Growth Models
Outside of North America, three key drivers have supported commercialization of PTF technology:
rapidly diminishing landfill capacity, a strong push to increase diversion and materials recovery, and the
drive to find value in non-recycled materials. In these examples below, all three factors were drivers in
siting a facility. These examples highlight how companies have specifically leveraged one of these drivers
and the technology has proven to meet an important need.
Shortage of suitable landfill space. Polymer Energy has two systems in place in Thailand and one
in India. In Thailand, the PTF system is located at a landfill, where new landfill space is being created by
mining and sorting the material in the landfill. The sorting, and in some cases the processing, is
happening at the site of the landfill. Metals are recovered for recycling, organics are placed into a
digester which creates biogas for energy, and plastics such as polyethylene (PE) and PP are fed into the
PTF system to make oil. Because Thailand has limited future landfill options, significant efforts are being
made to optimize existing landfill space. Conservation efforts are strong in Thailand, and financial
incentives have been created for diversion of material. In terms of incentives for this specific technology,
PTF companies are eligible to receive a subsidy of seven Bahts, or about $.023 U.S. for each liter of oil
sold to a refinery.
Increased recovery goals. The United Kingdom continues to promote recovery of scrap plastics
through increasing both recovery goals and funding, such as the Waste & Resources Action Programme
(WRAP), to create recovery and end market opportunities for plastics. The current UK recycling goal for
plastics is 32 percent for 2011 and 2012. This is up from up from 29 percent in 2010.9 Even with
aggressive recovery goals, 68 percent of plastic packaging will be headed to landfills or to energy
recovery facilities in the UK. However, thanks to investment in PTF technology, a portion of the plastics
that are not recovered will be converted to fuel.
Tennessee Solid Waste Education Project: Waste-to-energy incineration. http://wwwtnswep.ra.utk.edu/activities/pdfs/mu-W.pdf.

9
Bardelline, Jonathan. UKs New Plastics Recycling Target Attached. In Greenbiz.com, October 28, 2010,
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/10/28/uk-new-plastic-recycling-target-attacked.
April 2011
13
Cynar Plc., a PTF company, in partnership with Sita, one of Europes largest waste management
companies, will be building 10 PTF facilities throughout the UK in the next three years. Cynar has been
operating a commercial-scale PTF facility in Ireland for a number of years and will be replicating that
technology in the UK under contract with Sita. Sitas investment in this technology gives the company an
avenue to further reduce the volume of material headed to landfills and thus give them a competitive
edge in winning municipal solid waste management contracts. Sita now has a further competitive edge
in being able to control their internal transport costs by using the fuel produced from end of life plastic
in their collection fleet. Plastic recovered and converted into fuel currently counts toward diversion in
the UK. And there is some support to redefine recycling to include plastics converted to fuel.
Finding value in Non-recycled plastics. China has a very robust plastics recycling industry. The
dynamics of their rapidly growing economy has created opportunities to find value in scrap plastic
material that does not have favorable economics for recycling in the U.S. and elsewhere. High demand
for resources and relatively inexpensive labor costs has created new opportunities for the handling of
some non-recycled plastics. And, PTF technology is one way new value is being found in otherwise nonrecycled plastics. An example of this is the success that Plastic Advanced Recycling Corp. has had with
two PTF systems, which are converting plastics into oil that have been rejected by paper mills and other
recyclers in China.
Many paper recycling mills receive sizable volumes of mixed, contaminated plastics in the bales
they purchase. The level of contamination that occurs during the paper pulping process leaves the
plastics covered in ink. However, because most modern pyrolysis systems can tolerate a wide range of
contaminants, these plastics make an ideal feedstock for fuel recovery. Since 2008, the Plastic Advanced
Recycling Corp. has had two systems in place at paper mills and the company claims the systems have
been a success. The mills avoid landfill fees, and the mixed-plastic product is a valuable resource. The
company hopes to replicate this success in the U.S. in the next two years.
While these three factors that have led to investment in commercialization of pyrolytic
technology abroad, these factors have played a smaller role in shaping the waste management
landscape in North America. However, other drivers in the United States could play a role in increasing
the commercialization of pyrolytic technologies for non-recycled plastics. These include an ample supply
of non-recycled scrap plastics, economics of avoided landfill tipping fees, and the growing demand for
less expensive, alternative fuel products.
9. Growth model for the technology in the U.S.
Pyrolytic technologies are not new and have a long history in the U.S. Dozens of companies have
courted investors to finance plastic pyrolysis technologies. However, these companies failed to deliver
economically viable, commercial-scale systems. Scaling the technology beyond bench scale proved
problematic for decades, as did the quality of the fuel product. The history of this technology may cause
some to be initially hesitant to invest in the technologies of today. However, the newest generation of
pyrolysis technology manufacturers claim to have addressed most of those challenges, and appear
April 2011
14
poised to make the leap to commercial-scale installations. Confidence in the long-term viability of these
systems is increasingly being bolstered by success stories of similar systems in other parts of the world.
While the U.S. does not have a landfill crisis, numerous mandates to increase diversion, or a
particular collective ethic to find as much value in our waste streams as possible, the U.S. does have
many of the same market dynamics that have made these systems a success abroad. And, North
American technology manufacturers are offering a model of commercialization that utilizes these
market advantages. Those positive market conditions are a consideration when evaluating optimal
facility locations. First, close proximity to a collection or generation point for non-recycled scrap plastics
(access to supply) is important. And if needed, proximity to a refinery (demand for product) should be
considered. In many cases, systems producing a product needing additional treatment need not be
located near a refinery, however the logistics for transporting the product to the refinery should be
considered when factoring in production costs.
Two of the companies that have systems abroad have been actively seeking potential sites for
systems in the U.S. These companies have had discussions with state and local governments about tax
and business incentives, which can also be a compelling factor when deciding where to locate a facility.
While these systems are not eligible to receive recycling grants or tax credits, there a number of other
economic incentive programs that these systems may be eligible for, including job creation tax credits
and potential eligibility for U.S. Department of Agriculture grants if the facility is built in a rural location.
While the U.S. generally lacks some of the economic, environmental, and policy drivers that
have encouraged investment in commercialization abroad, it is important to consider the likely factors
that could ultimately spur investment in North America. Some of those likely factors include: rising fuel
costs; growing investment in green or clean technologies and, in particular, investment in
alternative fuel production; as well as the pressure to increase the recovery of plastics.
Rising fuel costs. Fuel costs had been relatively stable over the past year; however increased
political unrest in oil-producing nations has caused some price increases in 2011. For companies that
have integrated waste hauling and waste sorting businesses, investment in PTF systems could be an
ideal way to create a synergy between the abundant supply of non-recycled plastics being handled at
MRFs and creating a long-term cost control strategy for fleet fuel costs. Alternatively, those companies
looking to market the finished product from PTF facilities will be able to fetch higher prices for their
product. Those companies running PTF systems that produce an oil product report the sale price of that
product tracking just slightly lower than the NYMEX price of crude oil. As the price of crude rises, so
could the sale price of the product, making ROI timeframe potentially shorter.
Alternative fuel. Because the health of the U.S. economy is so closely tied to fuel costs and the
U.S. has little influence on the ability to control factors that contribute to those rising costs, alternative
fuels are seen as an important investment. There is also a drive to produce more clean energy in the
U.S.; specifically energy derived from alternative sources that do not require extraction of natural
resources. PTF technology, like the development of ethanol and bio-diesel technologies, is an alternative
April 2011
15
fuel option. However, to date much of the focus on non-traditional fuels has been on developing
renewable fuel sources. The ethanol and bio-diesel industries have seen sizeable investments made to
build capacity in these two areas. These investments are sizable in large part due to the renewable fuel
standards created through government initiatives. More decision-makers are recognizing that the scope
of the focus for supporting non-traditional derived fuel should be expanded to include all alternative
fuel sources. Creating demand for PTF products, similar to the demand created for renewable fuels,
would be a likely catalyst for investment in commercialization of this technology.
Efforts to increase the recovery of plastics. The recovery rate for commodity scrap plastics has
made just incremental gains over the past ten years. In 2009, it is estimated that 28 percent of PET
bottles and 29 percent of HDPE bottles were recycled in the U.S.10 Each year, reclaimers report one of
the biggest challenges to their business is the constraint presented by collection rates. In a move to
increase the volume of desirable HDPE and PET plastics, many communities have adopted all bottle, or
all plastic container collection programs. Many of the Nos. 3-7 containers that are collected in such
programs are landfilled, or perhaps exported to Asia if domestic markets cannot be identified. If a stable
and local solution for those Nos. 3-7 containers were available, many more communities might be able
to expand to all bottles, or all plastic container collection system systems in an effort to increase
collection of PET, HDPE, and PP.
Many communities in the U.S. have not expanded recycling programs because either the
technology is not in place to effectively separate a wide variety of plastics, or communities do not want
to begin to collect material for which markets are uncertain. PTF technologies could afford
municipalities an end-of-life solution they need for the non-recycled plastic that would be inevitably
collected when recycling programs expand in an effort to increase recovery of PET and HDPE. The move
to single-stream has been shown to both increase the volumes recovered for all recyclable commodities,
but contamination tends to increase as well. Once the valuable plastics have been separated from the
co-mingled mix of materials, MRFs are left with piles of plastics that are not suitable for recovery. Some
of these plastics are films that are too contaminated for recovery at retail outlets. While these items
cannot be mechanically recycled, they are the perfect feedstock materials for PTF systems.
10. Identified opportunities
A second goal of this study is to identify the opportunities that exist for creating favorable conditions for
commercializing this technology in the U.S. Potential investors will want to know what favorable
conditions exist that will support commercialization of this technology. A number of these opportunities
have been touched upon in this report, including:
10
2009 United States National Post-Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report. Prepared by the American
Chemistry Council and the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers,
http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_content.asp?CID=1593&DID=11513.
April 2011
16
There is ample supply of scrap material (feedstock) for these systems, as mechanical recycling
currently captures seven percent of the plastics in the municipal solid waste stream (US EPA,
2009).
Demonstrated fuel product is in demand and there are numerous buyers.
In terms of permitting, only a basic air pollution permit is required, as the conversion process
emits just a fraction of the allowable emissions under air permit standards. This is important in
terms of the flexibility that exists for increasing the scale of a facility.
Cost of tip fees is not a factor in siting facilities, so opportunity is ample.
Economics of some of these systems are favorable, even if the price of oil drops down to $40
per barrel.
Systems range in price from $1 million to $5 million for 7,500 -10,000 ton-per- year facility.
According to technology manufacturers, ROI is relatively short, ranging from one to four years.
For internal users of the end products, these technologies can present an opportunity to control
fuel costs, which are projected to rise in the long-term.
One additional opportunity is the apparent widespread support for PTF technologies amongst the
recycling industry. Perhaps the greatest fear by recycling proponents of PTF technologies is that highly
recycled plastic such as PET and HDPE bottles, or growing plastics recycling such as rigid PP containers
such as tubs and lids would end up as feedstock for these systems, reducing the amount of these
plastics available for reclamation. PTF is certainly not the highest and best use for that plastic. Since the
economics of these systems are designed around the strategy of obtaining scrap material for free, or
nominal cost, large volumes of these plastics ending up in the PTF feedstock is not currently a valid
concern.
MFRs
Reclaimers
To gauge support for PTF technologies amongst key sectors of the plastics recycling industry,
Resource Recycling, publisher of Plastics Recycling Update, surveyed MRF operators and HDPE and PET
reclaimers on the issue of PTF. Their responses are as follows:
Do you support the development of plastics-to-oil systems as a complement to the current
recycling infrastructure to manage plastics that are otherwise deemed unrecyclable, such
as labels, bags or caps?
Yes - 80.0%
No - 20.0%
One option for marketing the mixed, contaminated plastics generated at a MRF is to convert
this material back into chemical feedstocks to make plastics again, or to convert this material
into energy. Do you think conversion is a good idea?
Yes 80.4%
No 19.6%
April 2011
17
11. Identified barriers
While it is important to understand the opportunities that might favor adoption of this technology, it is
equally important, to identify some of the key barriers that could continue to present challenges for the
commercialization of PTF technologies. Factors that present challenges are discussed below.
Classification of the technology is unclear. Some of the technology manufacturers that have
built pilot-scale facilities have encountered some uncertainty as to how their PTF facility should be
permitted. Most regulators do not have experience with this technology, and it does not neatly fall into
a pre-existing category of a materials management facility. Currently a transfer station, recycling facility,
or MRF are the common facility permitting options for materials management with which regulators are
familiar. Sometimes PTF facilities are classified not so neatly under one of these groupings. In some
instances, states such as New York, have a specific classification for pyrolysis facilities, but not all of
these systems fit that category neatly, since some of pyrolysis systems operate at temperatures that are
below the temperatures that traditionally have been used for pryolytic conversion. The result is that
permitting a facility can take longer than expected and facilities might be required to obtain permits that
had not been anticipated. As regulators become more familiar with siting these facilities, this challenge
should diminish over time.
Conversion does not always count toward recovery rates. In most communities, the scrap plastic
materials that could be recovered for PTF may not always count toward mandated recovery and
recycling rates. For example, in California communities are mandated to divert 50% of material from
disposal by 2000 based on 1990 disposal figures, through source reduction, recycling and
composting.11 Diversion credit comes through reuse, recycling and recovery. Communities that had
pre-approved waste to energy, and other conversion technologies in place before the passage of the law
can claim a 10 percent credit toward the diversion goal. Since pyrolysis is considered a transformation
technology in California, and no PTF facilities were sited in California before the passage of the
diversion requirements, in many cases it does not count toward diversion rates.
The only exception to this would be for material that is managed at a facility that does not
require a solid waste facility permit (SWFP). So, for example, if a PTF system were at the back end of a
MRF, converting landfill-bound plastics to usable fuel, the material diverted from the landfill to the PTF
system would count toward diversion credit. If that same type of landfill-bound feedstock for the PTF
system were recovered at a transfer station or landfill, which does require a SWFP, then it would not
count toward the diversion goal. This ambiguity can create a level of uncertainty around investment in,
and adoption of this type of technology.
Ineligibility for recycling grants. At this time, pyrolytic conversion is not considered a form of
recycling (see above), despite the fact that the technology could provide a highest and best use for
11
Guidance document: How conversion technologies fit current board regulatory structure. California Integrated
Waste Management Board, December 2007,
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lea/Mail/2007/ConversnTech/Guidance.pdf.
April 2011
18
otherwise landfill-bound plastics. Federal, state and local grant opportunities exist to support the
growth of recycling activities. However, because PTF does not fall into the category of recycling, these
projects are not currently eligible for recycling grants.
Alternative, not renewable fuel. As discussed in Section 10, considerable demand for renewable
fuels has been created as a result of renewable fuel standards and government mandates. These fuel
standards require that certain levels of fuel derived from renewable resources be blended with
conventionally derived fuels. New demand for these fuels has created opportunity for investment in the
alternative fuel industry. PTF products do not qualify as renewable; however they qualify as alternative.
Work is being done at the federal level to replace renewable with alternative in regards to fuel
standards.
PTF needs to be formally recognized as separate from incineration. While incineration or mass burn
waste-to-energy (WTE) is commonly used to treat MSW in Europe and other parts of the world, WTE has
met great opposition in the U.S. Concerns over environmental impacts and the impact incineration can
have on material recovery rates have been voiced by those opposing expanded use of WTE.
Environmental groups have voiced concerns over using other conversion technologies, such as
gasification and pyrolysis systems, which they believe to be very similar to WTE incineration. In fact,
Greenpeace lists pyrolysis as an incineration technology.12 However, as discussed in Section 2 of this
report, PTF technologies specifically treat plastics, have a different thermal treatment process that
yields little emissions, and thus should be distinguished as a separate technology.
Many if not all of the barriers identified above could be addressed through broader recognition
and/or adoption in the United States of ISO 15270, which includes cracking, gasification and
depolymerization in its definitions of chemical recycling and feedstock recycling. In addition, this
ISO standard includes various forms of recycling and energy recovery in its definition of recovery.
Systems treat just one fraction of the waste stream. While this is certainly a benefit in some regards,
PTF technologies are designed to only treat scrap plastics. This could be a major detraction for a
municipality that is faced with landfill constraints in the near future and needs to seek viable
alternatives to treat the total of the MSW stream. According to the U.S. EPA, plastics only represent a
total of 12.3% of the waste stream.13 Communities like Los Angeles that face an impending landfill space
shortage will need to invest in technologies that will provide much larger diversion potential to meet
long-term solid waste management needs. PTF technologies are however a reasonable technology
option for communities that are looking at long-term solutions for extending the life of landfills and
finding new means to transform non-recycled plastics into a resource.
12
Types of Incineration. Greenpeace,

http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/html/content/incineration/types.html#pyr.
13
Municipal Solid Waste. U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm.
April 2011
19
12. Policy options for promoting PTF technologies
A number of policy strategies can be employed to help mitigate the barriers to commercialization of PTF
technologies in the U.S. These include creating aggressive recovery targets for plastics, making PTF
installations eligible for federal and state tax credits, creating specific demand for PTF products and
clearly defining PTF technology as separate from other conversion technologies that treat the entirety of
the municipal solid waste stream. A number of these policy strategies have been successfully employed
abroad.
Perhaps one of the most significant measures of this nature to be introduced in the U.S. was
House Bill 3592, better known as the Plastics Recycling Act of 2009. This federal measure would have
created a $0.60 per gallon tax credit on the production of qualified synthetic oil derived from plastics at
qualified small conversion process recycling facilities. A qualified facility would have maximum
processing capacity of 2,000 barrels of oil a day. Analysis of this bill suggests it could have addressed two
of the primary barriers to commercialization of PTF technologies discussed in this paper defining PTF
as recycling and creating an incentive for investment. Unfortunately, this bill failed to move out of
committee during the 111th Congress and is no longer an active measure. While many PTF technology
manufacturers supported the measure as a means to spur investment and commercialization, attention
to creating new demand for this product as an alternative fuel is reported to be of higher priority than
subsidies at this time.
Two notable measures have been introduced at the state level, which address the definition of
pyrolytic technologies. The first was Assembly Bill 1150, introduced in California in 2008. This measure
would have removed pyrolysis from the definition of transformation technologies, which includes
incineration. Currently the California Public Resources Code defines recycling as separate from
transformation. This code too would have addressed two barriers changing the status of pyrolysis so
it is not expressly omitted from the definition of recycling and defining pyrolysis as distinctly different
from incineration. Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) eventually abandoned the effort, amending the
bill to make it a health care measure.
The latest measure to be introduced that would attempt to redefine plastics pyrolysis as
recycling is House Bill 3597, which was introduced in Oregon in 2011. This bill is currently under
consideration.
13. Outlook for commercialization for PTF technology in the U.S.
Many of the technology manufacturers in North America that have been operating pilot-scale facilities
are hopeful that they will be able to secure investment for a commercial-scale facility in the next two or
three years, if not sooner. A number of firms operating commercial facilities in other parts of the world
have also expressed strong interest in bringing this technology to the U.S. Two firms with functional
systems in place abroad have had serious discussions with state and local agencies about potential
economic incentives that might be available for constructing a facility. The outlook for
April 2011
20
commercialization of PTF technology in North America in the near-term looks strong, as three operators
of foreign systems are actively looking to site a facility in the U.S. and at least one U.S. PTF technology
manufacturer has reported three systems slated for installation. Other PTF manufacturers reported
being in active negotiations with potential municipal and private partners.
A recent development that demonstrates the growing interest in PTF technologies is the latest
investment in the Agilyx plastic-to-oil technology. The $22 million investment includes financial support
from Waste Management, the worlds largest waste management firm and Total S.A., a major
international oil company. A partnership of this nature is important as it supports the primary benefits
that PTF technology offer a recovery opportunity for non-recycled plastic which, through conversion,
creates a valuable resource. An investment of this nature also adds validity to the use of this technology
as a tool that the waste management and recycling industry can use to maximize material recovery and
value. As Waste Management stated, the technology provides a viable option for processing
contaminated and hard to recycle plastic resins and create a high value commodity. For communities
and their waste management partners, PTF technologies offer a double positive.
There is great optimism amongst other technology manufacturers that Agilyxs success will not
be unique. Additional investment in this area could lead to installation of the first commercial scale
facilities in North America over the next few years. While drivers for investment in these systems vary
based on political and environmental conditions, the sustaining factors of success seem to be universal,
including ample supply of feedstock and demand for the fuel and oil product. Growing acceptance of
this technology amongst the solid waste management community may also aid the movement toward
favorable policies for PTF and the fuel products which will eliminate some of the current barriers for
commercialization. These developments, coupled with the advances made by the latest generation of
pyrolytic technology could create a bright future for PTF as a recovery opportunity for non-recycled
plastics, and offer an enhancement to the existing plastics recycling infrastructure.
April 2011
Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix A
Appendix A: Pyrolysis process flow
Schematic courtesy of Cynar Plc, 2011
April 2011
Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B
Appendix B: Technology forms from

system manufacturers
These forms contained in Appendix B were collected from the

technology manufacturers between February 2011 April 2011. All
information contained in the forms is self-reported information and
appears as it was originally submitted.
April 2011
Company Name: Agilyx

Company Location: Tigard, OR
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
System information
What is the current source of material for the systems in place
Currently running over a dozen sources, including: Ag lastics, some postconsumer, post-industrial and numerous customer samples from all over the
world.
List those that have been tested with success
Nos. 1-7 Comments: Handling 3-7, primarily
Engineering grade resins Comments: yields will vary with resin type
PLA Comments: Should be OK, but have not tested it specifically.
Others: Can handle loads up to 70% PVC, which is unique. System can handle a
mix of rigids and films.
List specific resins these system cannot handle
Nylon 6 does not do well, so not a good solution for unprocessed carpet.
Is there a maximum contamination level, moisture level?
system can handle any level of contamination and contaminants ranging from
metal, glass, food, paper, water. Agilyx has run a load of up to 50% iron without
any difficulty. The yield goes down with contamination, but the system can handle
it.
Describe the product yielded from the process (check all that apply)
Diesel (no gasoline), proportion of the output:
%
Diesel/gasoline mix , proportion of the output:
/
%
Product similar to crude oil; proportion of the output: 80%
Natural gas; proportion of the output: 12%
Monomers; proportion of the output:
%
Describe state of the final product once it comes out of the system
It is ready to use by a consumer and needs no further refining
Product needs further refining by a third party
What is the residue (ex., char)?
8% powdery carbon residual
And, how is this residue treated (ex., landfilled)?
Have been giving away the carbon residual which is being used in steel
manufacutring. The material has BTU value so it could be burned. It could also be
landfilled.
Brief description of the process
Anaerobic thermal reclamation
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Process conducted in a vacuum:
Yes
No
Conversion rate: 80%
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get ~5 barrels of oil amount of usable product out.
Other comments: yields depend on feedstock content
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 3,500 t/y
April 2011
Independent
engineers review
available
Estimated time frame
for Return on
Investment
Number of facilities
in operation
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min
/Max most interest is in 20-30 t/d (about 10,000
t/y) (tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
Based on projections with energy, labor and other costs remaining consistent over
time.
4 years or less
No. of facilities: 1 Years in operation 4.5
Location of facilities: Tigard, OR Size of facility: 10 t/day (3,500 t/year)
Company contact information:

Contact person: Chris Ulum
Address: 7904 SW Hunziker St., Tigard, OR 97223
Web address: www.agilyx.com
Phone: 503-217-3160
Email: culum@agilyx.com
April 2011
Company Name: Anhui Oursun Environment &Technology Corporation

Company Location: Hefei,ANhui ,China
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
System information
PPE.PE.PET.HDPE.LDPE.PP.PS.
Nos. 1-7 Comments:
Engineering grade resins Comments:
PLA Comments:
Others:
YES,IT WILL AFFECT THE AMOUNT OF THE OIL
Diesel (no gasoline), proportion of the output: 85%
/
%
Natural gas; proportion of the output:
%
%
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on

carbon black
as a fuel
Uses microwave frequencies to extract oil and gas from plastics.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate:
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 50-85% amount of usable product out.
Other comments:
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 8000
System is scalable:
Yes
No
/Max 18000 (tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
time.
April 2011

Investment
in operation
it depends.but it ususally it will get net benefits in one year

No. of facilities:
Years in operation 7
Location of facilities: HEFEI,Anhui,China Size of facility: two sites

Contact person: Jane Tall
Address: hefei ,anhui
Web address: www.oursunchina.com
Phone: 0086+13965124132
Email: janegll@hotmail.com
April 2011
Company Name: Climax Global Energy

Company Location: Allendale, South Carolina
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
System information
MRF residue (muni and private); private recyclers
Nos. 1-7 Comments: Post-consumer
PLA Comments:
Others:
Have not tested engineered plastics
Our feed can be mixed/dirty (e.g. paper, rocks, metals, etc) and wet; affects
economics
%
/
%
%
%
Other: Can be refined into ULSD, wax/lubricants
Char
Landfilled or incinerated
Uses microwave pyrolysis to break down plastics into syn-crude.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate:
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 5 bbl amount of usable product out.
Other comments:
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 1,000
System is scalable:
Yes
No
/Max
(tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments: All engineering in-house. Product test results available.
April 2011

for Return on
Investment
in operation
time.
3 yrs
No. of facilities: 1 Years in operation 1
Location of facilities: SC Size of facility: 3 ton/day

Contact person: John Griffith
Address: 450 Springfield Ave, Suite 201, Summit, NJ 07901
Web address:
Phone: (908) 277-2227
Email: johngriffith@climaxglobalenergy.com
April 2011
Company Name: Cynar Plc

Company Location: Central Ireland
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on
System information
MAterial Recycling Facilities throughout Ireland
Nos. 1-7 Comments: 2,4,5 and 6
PLA Comments:
Others:
PVC and PET
5% recommended but more contamination equals reduced output
Diesel/gasoline mix , proportion of the output: 75/20%
Product similar to crude oil; proportion of the output:
%
%
4% Char
Landfilled at the moment but being worked on for other applications.
Pyrolysis of end of life plastics then specific distillation of the gases
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 750 litres of EN590 diesel and 200/250 litres of
gasoline amount of usable product out.
Other comments:
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 10 tons per day
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min 6000/Max 12000 (tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
time.
April 2011

Investment
in operation
6m with an EBITDA of 1m
Location of facilities: Central Ireland Size of facility: 3000 tpa

Contact person: Michael Murray
Address: Cynar Plc Portlaoise, Ireland
Web address: www.cynarplc.com
Phone: +353 86 608 1450
Email: michaelmurray@cynarplc.com
April 2011
Company Name: Envion

Company Location: Washington, D.C.
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System information
Scrap plastics from curbside mix, sourced directly from the MRF. Nos. 1-7, but
have designed the system to run with Nos. 1-3 picked out (PET oil yield is very
low).
Nos. 1-7 Comments: Nos. 1-3 are sorted out.
PLA Comments:
Others: PVC is not acceptable but tolerated. Must be below 5 to less than 1% of
the mix. Furthermore, human exposure to PVC type chemicals during the
cracking process is a health hazard and not recommended .
PVC and PVC related plastics are not desirable because of the corrosion factor and
the product oil is also not good quality. PLA won't yield much oil, similar to PET.
Moisture can be steamed out. Contamination like dirt and organics are not
recommended. The system can accommodate paper the best. Because it's
presorted plastics, the contamination should be relatively low.
%
/
%
Natural gas; proportion of the output: 15%%
%
There is a heavy oil component that remains (aka char). 15% sludge.
Have tried to put it into asphalt but its not a binder. There is a carbon component
to it, so it can be clean burned since it's mostly carbon, and generate electricty to
feed back into the system (20% of electricity is coming from process gasses, clean
burning the char could add another 25% of energy needs).
Far-Infrared heating process. Catalysist is an electromagnetic wave.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate: about 70%
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 4.22 barrels of oil amount of usable product out.
April 2011

Other comments: About 10%-15% of material is the sludge/char, 15% process
gases which are piped back into the system.
System capacity
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 10,000 t/year is commercial
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min 10,000 t/y/Max just add multiple reactors for increased
capacity (tons per year)
Independent
Yes
engineers review
No
available
Comments:
Estimated time frame Based on projections with energy, labor and other costs remaining consistent over
for Return on
time.
Investment
3-4 years if the system is integerated at the generators facility, longer ROI if the
facility is at a stand alone site.
No. of facilities: 1 Years in operation 1.5
in operation
Location of facilities: Montgomery County, MD* Size of facility: demo faciltiy is
3,000 t/y
*Will be moved to a MRF by mid-2011 (permanent facility)
Contact person: Pio Goco
Address: 1027 23rd St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20007
Web address: www.envion.com
Phone: 202-965-5030
Email: pgoco@envion.com
April 2011
Company Name: GEEP

Company Location: Barrie, Ontario
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
System information
Plastics from electronics
Nos. 1-7 Comments:
PLA Comments:
Others: mixed plastics, shredded-light fraction, can handle PVC
None
40%
/
%
%
%
%
carbon/oil sludge
centrifugated for recovery of oil into process, then compacted, disposed of at this
point, when going into full production we will send material to steel mills as
reducing agent and slag former
Process converts waste Plastics from electronics (mainly PS, ABS, PC or blends
thereof) into a usable diesel fuel at a yield of around 75%.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 750 kg amount of usable product out.
Other comments: This is the yield for our average e-waste plastic mix. Can be
higher or lower depending on the chemical structure of the plastic used (Example:
for PE this can be 96%, for PVC only 12%.
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 6000
System is scalable:
Yes
No
/Max
(tons per year)
April 2011

Independent
engineers review
available

for Return on
Investment
in operation
Yes
No
Comments: We havent done this yet (other than PSHR reviews to get our
permits), but guests are welcome to have a look at the system if there is an
interest.
time.
For a production plant about 24 month
Location of facilities: Barrie, ON Size of facility: 500 liters/hour

Contact person: Patrick Oberle
Address: 220 John Street
Web address: www.geepglobal.com
Phone: +1-705-737-0355
Email: poberle@barriemetals.com
April 2011
Company Name: JBI Global, Inc.

Company Location: Niagara Falls, Canada
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on
Investment
System information
2,4 and 5 according to the Ontario Blue Box program, have the highest yield.
Nos. 1-7 Comments: 2,4 and 5 have the highest yield
Engineering grade resins Comments: .
PLA Comments:
Others:
The process accepts all types of engineering resins
No
%
%
Natural gas; proportion of the output: 8.0%
%
carbon black, which is 1-5% of yield
The residue has a 10,600 BTU/lb heating value but can also be landfilled
low-temperature thermal process.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate: 86.7%
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get
amount of usable product out.
Other comments: 1kg of plastic in equals 1 Litre of fuel out
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): aroximately 7000 T per year
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min 1T/Hour/Max
(tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
time.
One year, or less
April 2011

in operation
No. of facilities: 1
Location of facilities: Niagara Falls, NY

Contact person: John Bordynuik
Address: 1783 Allanport Road, Thorold, Ontario, L0S 1K0
Web address: www.plastic2oil.com
Phone: 905-384-4383 ext. 227
Email: john@johnbordynuik.com
April 2011
Company Name: Klean Industries Inc

Company Location: Headquarters, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
System information
End of life plastics from municipal waste streams (MSW), material recycling
facilities (MRF), agricultural scrap plastics, plastic films, post consumer, post
industrial, automotive shredder residues (ASR), e-waste.
Nos. 1-7 Comments: Primarily processing PE, HDPE, LDPE, PS, PP
Engineering grade resins Comments: Yields vary oil/char ratio
PLA Comments:
Others: System can handle loading of PVC and PET of up to 20% of in feed volume.
The systems accepts all engineer resins, end yields will vary depending on the
resins.
Feedstock can be mixed, wet, dirty (i.e. metal, paper, soil etc) system integrated
material handling systems that removes 95% of contamination. However it should
be noted that more processed contamination means reduce yields by volume.
%
Natural gas; proportion of the output: +/-10%
Monomers; proportion of the output: +/-30%
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield

Continuous processing limits the production of char however less than 5% of
infeed volume becomes char depending on feedstock.
It's pellitize, used and sold as a co-combustion fuel / coal replacement, used at
steel mills and in CHP pellet boilers.
A low temperature (less than 500 degrees Celsius) pyrolysis liquefaction based
technology that produces high CV syn-gases at ambient pressure that are then
processed using fractional distillation.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate: Depends on feedstock average 85% to 95%
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 650 litres to 950 litres (both gasoline & diesel)
April 2011
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available

for Return on
Investment
in operation

Other comments: Depending on how the system is configured and the plastic
being processed specific volumes can be increased or decreased using specific
controls not available with other systems.
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min 1000/Max 75,000 (tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments: The technology is in production for some of the world largest oil and
chemical producers. Many reports and periodicals are available. It is one of the
world's longest running, most commercailly proven technologies for processing
mixed waste plastic on a largest scale.
time.
Depends on the configuration of the plant, its location, balance of plant
requirements, EPC requirements, infrastructure and other factors however most
plants have a complete return on capital in 36 to 48 months. With consistent
energy, labor and running costs.
Location of facilities: Asia/Europe Size of facility: Various sizes from 1000 tonnes
per annum to 35,000 tonnes per anum.

Contact person: Jesse Klinkhamer
Address: #903 - 1495 Richards Street
Web address: http://www.kleanindustries.com
Phone: 604-637-9609
Email: sales@kleanindustries.com
April 2011
Company Name: KOREA ECO-System

Company Location: 439-3 Songnae-Dong Sosa-Goo
Buchon City, Kyonggi-Do, Korea
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
System information
Korea
Nos. 1-7 Comments: ?
Engineering grade resins Comments: ?
PLA Comments: ?
Others:
N/A
N/A
Diesel/gasoline mix , proportion of the output: gasoline/10%
Monomers; proportion of the output: 0%
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review

3% of coke
selling to coal companies
Uses microwave frequencies to extract oil and gas from plastics.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate:
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 1,000 liters of oil amount of usable product out.
Other comments:
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 263,000 liters of oil
System is scalable:
Yes
No
/Max
(tons per year)
Yes
No
April 2011

available
for Return on
Investment
in operation
Comments:
time.
Net profit for year - USD 52,200
No. of facilities: 3 Years in operation
Location of facilities: Korea Size of facility: 100 liters for 100 kg load each cycle
for 4 ~ 5 hrs

Contact person: Hahn
Address: 439-3 Songnae-Dong Sosa-Goo
Buchon City, Kyonggi-Do, Korea
Web address:
Phone: + 82 17 424 1236
Email: kohahn@paran.com
April 2011
Company Name: Natural State Research

Company Location: Stamford, CT
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System information
Mix of plastics from municipal waste stream. Encourage propsective investors to
send sample of materials to their labs to determine yeild and ROI.
Nos. 1-7 Comments: PVC and PET should be removed
PLA Comments:
Others:
PVC and PET need some pretreatment for removal of chlorine and oxygen
System can handle ag film, dirt and contamination does not seem to be a problem.
%
/
%
%
%
%
Other: Product can be tailored to consumer's needs. The system can produce
heating oil, gasoine, naphtha, aviation diesel, all which meet ASTM standards. Also
produced No. 6 fuel, which is currently being tested.
If you run it in batches, you'll get char. With continuous operation you get little to
no char.
Every three to six months you clean the sytem. Char has high carbon content and
can be mixed in and used as road carpteting, roofing material. It could be
landfilled if an alternative end use could not be found, but they haven't had to do
that yet.
Thermal liquification process that decomposes the hydrocarbon polymers of waste
plastic, and converts them into the shorter chain hydrocarbons of liquid fuel.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate: 95%-98%
OR
April 2011
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on
Investment
in operation
Other comments:
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 6 kg/hour
System is scalable:
Yes
No
/Max
(tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
time.
1-2 years if the cost of fuel production is estimated at $0.75/gal.
Location of facilities: Stamford, CT Size of facility: Demonstration lab, next
facility will be 100 kg/h, and hope to have a commercial scale facility by 2012

Contact person: Dr. Moinuddin Sarker
Address: 37 Brown House Road, 2nd floor, Stamford, CT 06902
Web address: www.naturalstateresearch.com
Phone: 203-406-0675
Email: msarker@naturalstateresearch.com
April 2011
Company Name: Nexus Fuels

Company Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
System information
Bench scale system at this time, sourcing scrap as needed for testing. Commercial
scale facilities would source post-consumer and post industrial plastics that are
otherwise being landfilled or exported.
Nos. 1-7 Comments: Nos. 2, and 4-7, don't want much PVC or PET, will
largely be going after LDPE film
PLA Comments:
Others:
Paper contamination is an issue, testing way to remove paper before the plastics
enter the system. Moisture is not a problem but increases energy cost to process.
%
%
Natural gas; proportion of the output: 8-12%
%
Residue, which is about 4-9%
Landfilled/ managed asphalt adjunct
thermal cracking
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate: 75-91%
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 1700 lbs amount of usable product out.
Other comments:
Size of current system in operation (tons per year):
System is scalable:
Yes
No
/Max
(tons per year)
Yes
No
April 2011

available
for Return on
Investment
in operation
Comments:
time.
NA at present
Location of facilities: Atlanta, Georgia Size of facility: Currently bench scale,
hope to have a 10,000-20,000 t/year facility sited in the Atlanta area.

Contact person: Jeffrey Gold
Address: 1445 Marietta Blvd
Web address:
Phone: 404-352-2001
Email: jeff@iescylinders.com
April 2011
Company Name: Plastic Advanced Recycling Corporation

Company Location: 7884 S.Quincy Street, Willowbrook IL 60527
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
System information
partly from MSW after separation and another part is from paper mills.
Nos. 1-7 Comments: the oil yield will be different with different mixtures of
resins.
PLA Comments:
Others:
NO
NO
%
/
%
Product similar to crude oil; proportion of the output: 50%-70% fuel oil can
be used directly as furnance fuel for power generation or can be further refined
into diesel and gasoline%
Natural gas; proportion of the output: 15-25% and is recycled back into the
reactor used as fuel%
%
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity

15-25% of the output is residue, mostly carbon black
can be used as raw materials for regenerative carbon black and bricks
The whole process is carried out in ambient pressure at temperature lower than
500 degrees celsius.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate:
OR
Other comments: for 30 tons of plastic, we get 4605 gallons of oil and 4.5 tons of
carbon black.
System is scalable:
Yes
No
April 2011
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on
Investment
in operation
If system is scalable: Min 10,000/Max

(tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
time.
2 and half years
Location of facilities: China Size of facility:

Contact person: April Zhang, Willy Li
Address: 7884 S. Quincy Street, Willowbrook, IL 60527
Web address: www. plastic2x.com
Phone: 630-655-6976
Email: parc2009usa@gmail.com; info@plastic2x.com
April 2011
Company Name: Polyflow

Company Location: Akron, Ohio
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System information
commercial and industrial generators, Akron zoo, building contractors, local MRF,
residential collection, MSW, etc
Nos. 1-7 Comments: 3-7 bales specifically
Engineering grade resins Comments: ABS, SAN, PC, acetal, tires, carpet,
SMC(70% inerts), etc
PLA Comments: acceptable. other bio-polymers will be acceptable when
available.
Others: co-polymers, films, tires, carpet, multi-layer films, HDPE with calcium
carbonate, snack bags, pouches, all thermoplastics and thermosets, e-waste
polymer
the process thrives on a mix. all polymers in the proportions produced by the
polymer industry are acceptable in the feed mix. +/- 20% variation around this
basaeline has been successfully demonstrated to date.
the process can tolerate contaminants to 50%. to maximize product yield, we limit
contaminants (including all materials compounded into the polymer) to less than
25%. we limit water to less than 5%.
%
Diesel/gasoline mix , proportion of the output: 33%/33%
%
%
Monomers; proportion of the output: 33%
The bseline mix yeilds on average 13% char consisting of the contaminants, fillers
glass, and metals in the feedstock. leaving out the tires and carpet reduce the char
to 5-7% of the feedstock by weight.
landfilled. it passes the RCRA leachate tests.
a unique, novel and patented application of pyrolysis
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate: baseline polymer waste will yield 67-72% gasoline, diesel fuel
and chemical intermediates. clean feedstock yields 78-83%.
April 2011
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on
Investment
in operation
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 67-72% amount of usable product out.
Other comments: the process also produces a clean non-condensible off-gas that
is sufficient to power the process.
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 420 lbs / batch pilot plant
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min 16,000/Max 150,000 typical plant (tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments: process demonstrations are available by appointment
time.
3-4 years
Location of facilities: Akron, OH Size of facility: Pilot facility, building a 16,000
ton/year facility in Akron

Contact person: Joseph Hensel
Address: 39 S. Main St., Ste 606
Web address: www.polyflowcorp.com
Phone: 330-253-5912
Email: henseljd@polyflowcorp.com
April 2011
Company Name: Polymer Energy

Company Location: Circle Pines, MN
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
System information
Plasics mined from the landfill, industry scrap, or collected through recycling
Nos. 1-7 Comments:
PLA Comments:
Others: System is designed for PP and PE plastic
PVC
Moisture and contamination levels should be under 15% for optimal yields
%
/
%
%
%
%
contaminants are cleaned out with the ash every four to five days
Residue is separted by size and density, Heavy metals are removed. Most of the
residue can become a commodity.
vaporizing waste plastic in an airless chamber with the addition of heat and a
catalyst to produce oil
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate:
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get 800 liters amount of usable product out.
Other comments:
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): 8.5 t/day
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min 8.5 t/day/Max
(tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
April 2011

for Return on
Investment
in operation
time.
3-5 years
Location of facilities:
Size of facility:

Contact person: Kathy Radosevich
Address: PO Box 69, Circle Pines, MN 55014
Web address: www.polymerenergy.com
Phone: 763-225-6600
Email: kradosevich@ntic.com
April 2011
Company Name: Recarbon Corp.

Company Location: Wilkes Barre, PA
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on
System information
waste plastics other than tires
Nos. 1-7 Comments:
PLA Comments:
Others:
possibly halogens containing plastics
Can handle contamination without presorting.
%
/
%
Product similar to crude oil; proportion of the output: cabout 50%
Natural gas; proportion of the output: trace%
Monomers; proportion of the output: trace%
fiber
filtered off and reused
heating with Biodiesel
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate: Unknown, in early bench scale phase
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get about 1 ton of product and 0.5 ton of reusable
fiber amount of usable product out.
Other comments: the process will consume about 0.5 ton of BD
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min no limits/Max no limits (tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
time.
April 2011

Investment
in operation
Unknown, economics have not been explored

Size of facility:

Contact person: Howard Gonchar
Address:
Web address:
Phone: 570-262-0266
Email:
April 2011
Company Name: Recarbon Corp.

Company Location: Wilkes Barre, PA
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on
System information
Used tires
Nos. 1-7 Comments:
PLA Comments:
Others: Rubber
does not apply
Can handle contamination without presorting.
%
/
%
Product similar to crude oil; proportion of the output: close to 100%
Natural gas; proportion of the output: trace%
Monomers; proportion of the output: trace%
valuable stainless steel wire, carbon black if needed
wires are filtered off and reused, carbon black can be left in suspension or filtered
and reused after some refining
Heting with cooking oil or biodiesel for 60 minutes
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
Conversion rate: practically quantitative
OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get about 1.5 - 2 tons amount of usable product out.
Other comments: the process will consume between 1/2 ton to 1 ton of BD
System is scalable:
Yes
No
If system is scalable: Min no limits/Max no limits (tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments:
time.
April 2011

Investment
in operation
Unknown, it depends on the scale and cost of crude

Size of facility:

Contact person: Howard Gonchar
Address:
Web address:
Phone: 570-262-0266
Email:
April 2011
Company Name: Vadxx Energy

Company Location: Cleveland, OH
Criteria
Source of feedstock
Resins accepted by
the system
Resins not accepted

by the system
Toleration of
contaminants
Output/Product
Residue
Description for the

process
System information
Our business model is to form joint ventures with companies that already traffic in
the desired feedstock (e.g. recycling company). They supply the feedstock, we
supply the technology and operation and we share in the oil proceeds.
Nos. 1-7 Comments: We have achieved consistent outputs of oil,
hydrocarbon gas and char across varying mixes of municipal plastic waste from
multiple waste management and recycling companies. The Nos. 1-7 mixtures have
minimized content of No. 1 and No. 3.
Engineering grade resins Comments: Not necessary to demand specific
engineering grade resins; mixed post-consumer waste resins and spent industrial
resins serve as good feedstock.
PLA Comments: Poly(lactic acid) or polylactide (PLA) is an impurity in mixed
feedstocks that is decomposed in the process without difficulty but it is not a
primary feedstock.
Others: Scrap tire, many grades of industrial waste rubber, polymer fraction of
auto shredder residue (ASR)/auto fluff, polymer fraction of e-waste.
Polysilanes & siloxanes, PVC & PVDC, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE),
PTFE, polyurea (polycarbamate), and thermoset resins are not accepted as primary
feedstocks but are minimized to contaminant levels.
Contaminant-specific; minimum moisture level.
%
/
%
%
Char.
We have confirmed multiple customers that will purchase our char output based
on lab analyses of char composition that was provided to them.
Continuous process pyrolysis.
Uses a catalyst:
Yes
No
Yes
No
April 2011

Process Yield
System capacity
Independent
engineers review
available
for Return on
Investment
in operation

OR
For one ton of plastic in, you get one ton amount of usable product out.
Other comments: Practically all process outputs yield usable product in the form
of synthetic crude oil (sold), hydrocarbon gas (used for process heat & electric
power generation) and char (sold).
Size of current system in operation (tons per year): If pilot plant was run
continuously at near peak capacity, it would produce 2,000 barrels per year. We do
not run it that often as its primary function is a research and development facility.
System is scalable:
Yes
No
/Max 12,000 (tons per year)
Yes
No
Comments: The details of the process involve trade secrets and proprietary
information.
time.
1 year
Location of facilities: Akron, OH Size of facility: Pilot plant

Contact person: Sean Arnold
Address: 1768 East 25th Street, Cleveland, OH 44114
Web address: www.vadxx.com
Phone: 440.336.3789
Email: sarnold@vadxx.com
April 2011

Conversion Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conversion Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conversion technology: A complement

This research project was funded by the American Chemistry Council.

Conversion technology: A complement to plastic recycling

Definition of conversion technology

Table 1. Source: LA County 2007

Recycling performed through chemical feedstock recovery

Niagara Falls, New York

*Have a pilot scale facility in operation. Appendix B contains technology forms.

Process flow courtesy of Cynar.

Table 4. Conversion technology systems outside of North America

*Currently licensing technology

U.S. EPA, Common Wastes & Materials Plastics, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/plastics.htm.

System capacity per year

Just under $1 million

One gallon of oil = 138,095 BTUs7

Bioenergy conversion factors Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Tennessee Solid Waste Education Project: Waste-to-energy incineration. http://wwwtnswep.ra.utk.edu/activities/pdfs/mu-W.pdf.

Demonstrated fuel product is in demand and there are numerous buyers.

Cost of tip fees is not a factor in siting facilities, so opportunity is ample.

Types of Incineration. Greenpeace,

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix A

Appendix A: Pyrolysis process flow

Schematic courtesy of Cynar Plc, 2011

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Appendix B: Technology forms from

These forms contained in Appendix B were collected from the

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company Name: Agilyx

Resins not accepted

Description for the

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company contact information:

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company Name: Anhui Oursun Environment &Technology Corporation

Resins not accepted

Description for the

What is the residue (ex., char)?

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

it depends.but it ususally it will get net benefits in one year

Company contact information:

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company Name: Climax Global Energy

Resins not accepted

Description for the

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company contact information:

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company Name: Cynar Plc

Resins not accepted

Description for the

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company contact information:

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company Name: Envion

Resins not accepted

Description for the

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Company Name: GEEP

Resins not accepted

Description for the

Conversion Technology: A complement to plastic recycling Appendix B

Estimated time frame

Company contact information: